Traditionalists have been beaten four-square. When (though, strictly, it is still ‘If’) the Measure comes into force, there will be no more Resolution A and B, no more ‘petitioning parishes’. There will be no more ‘flying bishops’, no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough. There will be again the assurance of good behaviour: no one will be over-faced by women priests and bishops ministering where they are not wanted. But there will be no guarantees (and, increasingly, no likelihood) that male bishops and priests ministering to us will share those convictions, or derive their orders from an unbroken apostolic succession of bishops in the Catholic line. Avoiding women ministers will become not a conviction about Catholic Order, shared throughout the ages, but a matter of sexual discrimination, abhorrent to all of us. In a very short time, it will have become unacceptable to invoke a sexist Code of Practice.
It is important for us all to understand how momentous all this is and what the implications are for our life together. I was never very hopeful of the Archbishops’ amendment, though it was good that it was debated. It would not have brought a clear and certain place for the Catholic understanding of Faith and Order. But it would have allowed a new generation of Provincial Episcopal Visitors – flying bishops – to try to work out, with the Archbishops, some sort of corporate life for our priests, people, and parishes. It is fair to say that both Archbishops wanted that. Moreover 60% of the bishops in Synod (though not two thirds) were prepared, more or less enthusiastically, to support the Archbishops and accept their spiritual lead.
Come the final judgment when, as the Prayer Book says in the Marriage Service, ‘the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed’, some will have to account for the broken promises of the early 1990s. Traditionalists were then assured of a permanent and honoured place. Great store was set by the doctrine of reception (whereby no change in Holy Order would finally thought to be ‘received’ until it was accepted by the ancient churches of East and West). It was on the basis of these promises – both now very hollow – that Provincial Episcopal Visitors were appointed, ordinands and their families exchanged comfortable life styles for theological college, curacies, and what promised to be a lifetime of ministry, and parishes set to work energetically with the task of evangelism and catechesis. However honourably these promises were made, there were liberal pressure groups intent on destroying them….
Same thing happened in TEC. The most solemn promises were jettisoned the minute a comfortable majority was reached. The brutal truth is that legislatures cannot bind future legislatures. The most solemn promise today is worthless tomorrow. Even constitutions are worthless to restrain a legislature determined to do something.
An optional step for the proponents – even if desirable to them – outweighs the promises of the past, and importantly, any value in the continued fellowship with these orthodox Christians. How ready the CoE proponents are to excommunicate their fellow Christians. A sad witness indeed.
🙄
What’s amazing is how hard it is to help even well-meaning convinced liberals of the deceptive inexorability of what they’ve done. The logic of “inclusion is our highest value” makes them unable (I mean this in the kindest way I can put it) to confront their earlier assertions and promises without huge cognitive dissonance, which sadly usually jerks sideways into a spasmodic ad hominem deflection, usually while trying to avoid saying “oh, but I don’t mean you” while wanting to say just that. No doubt there are a hardened cadre of conscious, willful, manipulating players out there, but it’s morbidly fascinating to me how few of them in sum there really are. It’s the absolutism and fundamentalism of “inclusion is our highest value” that occasionally makes me want to swing my irony around with a cutting edge to decapitate a few of the evasions I get at church meetings as a “moderate evangelical,” but I’m frustrated by the almost visible anti-irony field put out by the inerrant gospel of inclusion. You can cut them in half with their own irony, and they just stand there, sheepishly staring back at you.
So, what is the water temperature of the Bosporus this time of year?
+Andrew Burnham’s pastoral letter is admirably calm and measured, despite the fact that the votes at the General Synod represent the tolling of the bell, announcing the death of the sort of non-geographical diocese he leads. I thought the most interesting part of this letter was the bishop’s deep disappointment, even dismay over the fact that the idea of creating new dioceses (espeically like his and making them more formal and permanent) was roundly and decisively rejected (only 34% voting for it).
He refuses to tip his hand, but I think it’s pretty clear that the “Bishop of Ebbsfleet” will eventually join the Roman Ordinariate. The only real question is how many priests and laity will go with him (and at least the other two flying bishops).
Very sad. It’s a shameful day for the CoE, rather than a cause for rejoicing. Like the Elves leaving Tolkien’s Middle-earth, the anti-WO Anglo-Catholics will soon be departing the CoE. And the mother church of Anglicanism will be much the poorer because of it. Rivendell and Lothlorien will fade and eventually be no more than a memory.
David Handy+
Knapsack, “So, what is the water temperature of the Bosporus this time of year?” It is always a bit chill, but can be swum with perseverance. The folks here love their ancient, God centered, traditional church.
What is happening in England is exactly what has happened here. That is why so many of us have given up trust of the promises to be inclusive even though the rules are changing–we tried that and got slapped in the face–inclusion only includes those they want to include!. I pray now that we have moved on that we don’t end up in the same sort of situation!
David Handy, it was the godly charity of +Andrew, whilst blogging for Fulcrum from Lamber 2008, that convinced me that traditional Catholics must be protected at pretty much all costs.
So moving and poignant. I was touched by the final biblical image – clearly referring to the Exodus.
Hear, hear. Beautifully and cogently written. All so true, alas.
What is happening in England will at last be a boon. Dead wood must be cut away. Expending enormous money and energy to keep the dead limb on a dying tree is nonsense. If there is good wood anywhere, cut away to it. If there is none, burn the tree and plant again.
Running to the Roman church is for the weak and the hopeless; how can you safely stable your horses in a barn that the owner is unwilling to clean and which has not be clean for centuries. Talk about being clueless! Chaucer told us well: Who ever has seen a shitten shepherd and a clean sheep?
Let the terminal die. This is the most charitable act. What is interminable life support except cruel? L